I totally agree about the "Balkan type". And I am not as tolerant as I should be, to be honest, but I do try my best to accept them in a way. At the same time bad practices should not be tolerated in any way. So I find it pretty hard to find the right approach sometimes. It's like ideological/lifestyle/generational disaster..
Levo wrote:Why do you think that I have a negative opinion about Romanians themselves? Just because Bulgarian cities seemed to be more developed for me, it doesn't mean that I automatically have a bad opinion about the people in the country which is in a less luckier situation, as Romania. (And now, maybe only was.)
I am sorry if I got it wrong

I read the forum on and off and 'know' just a few people, so that's the vague impression I got from some posts of yours. I have had great impression from both Hungarians and Romanians and it makes me sad when they start buggering about. Sorry again if I got it that way.
About the towns - it is quite relative and it depends which ones you compare. For example, I like Bucharest much more than Sofia but sometimes it's just a matter of opinion.
Levo wrote:Actually we in Hungary are divided as for the theories about our origin. It is proven that we were neighbours, not in our present situation, but when Bulgarians were still in the Southern Steppes of present-day Russia, just as Hungarians. That's something no Hungarian doubts. (Though I know I'm in not admitted territories when I'm talking about the non-Slavic past of Bulgarians, we learn about it at secondary school that Bulgarians were originally a Turkish people (like the Chuwash for example), and got Slavonized later, and they are not proud about this part).
Only that some go even further and say that on top of all these, we are also related, which is debatable.
I like reading on such topics too but always take everything with a grain of salt. Unfortunately many historians use their research, "evidence" and strange theories just to uplift the nation's status and thus proclaim their nation "the most ancient", "the best", "the most developed". And it usually reaches the point of "you see, we were here before you so that land is ours". You won't believe it but now there's a new trend in some circles in Bulgaria [it's all about historians]. Now they abolished the Slavic origin theory and claim we're directly linked with Thracians

I find that bloody pathetic.. It's like the Greeks that believe they are descendants of Ancient Greece. In fact everything in Eastern Europe is so mixed [the North not that much since it was not easy to settle down] that any claims about any origin are uncertain. There are just the guesses of anthropologists, not many historical sources in writing. Of course, we have the main characteristics of Magyars, Slavs and Bulgars (btw it is Turkic, not Turkish origin) but our modern nations are something completely different. And for sure all these came in contact back then but it is hard to tell what exactly happened
What I noticed is that peoples who have a hard time in terms of politics and economics tend to stick to their past. I don't know how it is in Hungary but I am fed up hearing about the "glorious past" and our "magnificent and beautiful nature" while seeing the government fail big time.
Btw what paruha says is very interesting, I never thought about it. I am from the seaside but never met Hungarians back then, mainly Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, Finns and ex-USSR people. But it is very likely there were Hungarians as well.
Duko, the flags are indeed very similar but I have no explanation about that.